Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7cz98 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T03:10:52.152Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A discrete-event systems approach to modeling dextrous manipulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2009

S.L. Ricker ,
N. Sarkar  and
K. Rudiet
S.L. Ricker
Affiliation:
Department of Computing and Information Science.
N. Sarkar
Affiliation:
Department of Computing and Information Science. Department of Mechanical Engineering.
K. Rudiet
Affiliation:
Department of Computing and Information Science. Department of Mechanical Engineering. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario (Canada) K7L 3N6.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

To perform dextrous manipulation efficiently, it is necessary to coordinate the interactions of many component processes. This paper investigates one approach to coordination: discrete-event systems. The applicability of discrete-event systems to the modeling of dextrous manipulation tasks is studied. Discrete-event control theory offers formal methods for determining whether a coordinator of the components can be generated. A representative dextrous manipulation task, the planar Grasp-Lift-Replace task of Howe and Cutkosky, is presented as a discrete-event process. The task is extended to include two-fingered exploratory procedures. The effectiveness of the discrete-event system approach is illustrated through simulations of several test cases.

Keywords

Dextrous manipulationDiscrete-event systemControl theory

Information

Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 14 , Issue 5 , September 1996 , pp. 515 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Nakamura, Y., Nagai, K. and Yoshikawa, T., “Dynamics and instability in coordination of multiple robotic mechanisms” Int. J. Robotics Research 8 (2) 44–61 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Tarn, T.J., Bejcsy, A.K. and Yun, X., “Design of dynamic control of two cooperating robot arms: Closed chain formulation” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.Raleigh, North Carolina(1987) pp. 7–13.Google Scholar
3. Unseren, M.A. and Koivo, A.J., “Reduced order model and decoupled control architecture for two manipulators holding an object” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,Scottsdale, Arizona(1989) pp. 1240–1245.Google Scholar
4. Zheng, Y. and J.Y.S. Luh, “Optimal load distribution for two industrial robots handling a single object” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania(1988) pp. 344– 349.Google Scholar
5. Kumar, V. and Waldron, K.J., “Force distribution in walking vehicles on uneven terrain” ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, 112 (1), 90–99 (1990).Google Scholar
6. Cole, A., Hauser, J. and Sastry, S., “Kinematics and control of multifingered hands with rolling contact” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania(1988) pp. 228– 233.Google Scholar
7. Sarkar, N., Yun, X. and Kumar, V., “Dynamic control of 3-D rolling in multi-arm manipulation” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,Atlanta, Georgia(1993) pp. 978–983.Google Scholar
8. Cutkosky, M.R. and Hyde, J.M., “Manipulation control with dynamic tactile sensing” Presented at the 6th International Symposium on Robotics Research, Hidden Valley, Pennsylvania (1993).Google Scholar
9. Ramadge, P.J. and Wonham, W.M., “Supervisory control of a class of discrete event processes” SIAM Journal of Control and Optimization 25 (1), 206–230 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Brandin, B.A., Wonham, W.M. and Benhabib, B., “Manufacturing cell supervisory control – a modular timed discrete-event system approach” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,Atlanta, Georgia(1993) pp. 846–851.Google Scholar
11. McCarragher, B.J. and Asada, H., “A discrete event approach to the control of robotic assembly tasks” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,Atlanta, Georgia(1993) pp. 331–336.Google Scholar
12. Koŝecká, J. and Bogoni, L., “Application of discrete event systems for modeling and controlling robotic agents” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,San Diego, California(1994) pp. 2557–2562.Google Scholar
13. Sobh, T.M. and Bajcsy, R., “Autonomous observation under uncertainty” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,Nice, France(1992) pp. 1792–1798.Google Scholar
14. Ricker, S.L., Sarkar, N. and Rudie, K., “A discrete-event systems approach to dextrous manipulation.” To appear in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Allerton Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing,Monticello, Illinois(1995) pp. 156–165.Google Scholar
15. Johansson, R.S. and Westling, G., “Signals in tactile afferents from the fingers eliciting adaptive motor responses during precision grip”. Experimental Brain Research 66, 141–154 (1987).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Howe, R.D. and Cutkosky, M.R., “Sensing skin acceleration for slip and texture perception” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,Scottsdale, Arizona(1989) pp. 145–150.Google Scholar
17. Howe, R.D., Popp, N., Akella, P., Kao, I. and Cutkosky, M.R., “Grasping, manipulation, and control with tactile sensing” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,Cincinnati, Ohio(1990) pp. 1258–1263.Google Scholar
18. Howe, R.D. and Cutkosky, M.R., “Dynamic tactile sensing: Perception of fine surface features with stress rate sensing” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 9 (2), 140–151 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Son, J.S., Monteverde, A. and Howe, R.D., “A tactile sensor for localizing transient events in manipulation” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,San Diego, California(1994) pp. 471–476.Google Scholar
20. Lederman, S.J. and Klatzky, R.L., “Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition” Cognitive Psychology 19, 342–368 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Allen, P.K. and Michelman, P. “Acquisition and interpretation of 3-D sensor data from touch” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 6 (4), 397–404 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Stansfield, S.A., “Haptic perception with an articulated, sensate robot hand” Technical Report (Sandia National Laboratories, 03 1990).Google Scholar
23. Caldwell, D.G., Buysse, A. and Weizhan, Z. “Multi-sensor tactile perception for object manipulation/identification” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,Raleigh, North Carolina(1992) pp. 1904–1911.Google Scholar
24. Dario, P., Ferrante, P., Giacalone, G., Livaldi, L., Allotta, B., Buttazzo, G. and Sabatini, A., “Planning and executing tactile exploratory procedures” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,Raleigh, North Carolina(1992) pp. 1896–1903.Google Scholar
25. Ramadge, P.J. and Wonham, W.M., “The control of discrete-event systems” Proceedings of the IEEE 77 (1), 81–98 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Rudie, K. and Wonham, W.M., “Think globally, act locally: Decentralized supervisory control” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 37 (11), 1692–1708 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Hoare, C.A.R., Communicating Sequential Processes (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1985).Google Scholar
28. Leduc, R.J. and Wonham, W.M., “PLC implementation of a DES supervisor for a manufacturing testbed.” To appear in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing,Monticello, Illinois(1995) pp. 519–528.Google Scholar